Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19980826ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 26~ 1998 Chairperson Suzannah Reid called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Roger Moyer, Gilbert Sanchez, Mary Hirsch, Susan Dodington, Melanie Roschko, Heidi Friedland and Jeffrey Halferty. 117 N. 6TH STREET - Landmark Designation Lynne Coulter, owner presented a letter to the board requesting a withdraw and that HPC not proceed with Landmark Designation until she submits a new application. The Board supported Lynne's decision. 414 N. FIRST - Observation Deck and Flagpole Chris Bendon, planner presented. This is a review of three elements, specifically the observation deck; low landscape walls and a flag pole. The Planning & Zoning Commission looked at the observaiton deck and the landscape wall as part of the Hallam Lake Bluff review. The observation deck was approved but it was referred to the HPC for final materials. The landscape walls are a series of short about 18 inch high walls which would be precast concrete segments. The proposal is for a 40 foot high flag pole with the axis on Garmisch St. R.O.W. in the back of the site. The main concern with the materials on the observation deck is that they be compatible as it is visible from Halam Lake. There is a lot of exposed concrete, precast forms that are being used especially on the exterior on the eastern side of the house and those forms would be compatible with the overall design. With the flag pole the concern is that it be complimentary with the house and that the pole material not have ancillary effects that mat detract from the property. Aluminum poles tend to be noisy so the applicant chose a wooden pole which is by far better. The height of the ridge is 38 feet and the proposed pole is 40 feet. The pole would be toward the back of the property and is not visible from First Street. One concern was that the pole not be lit up at night. Sworn in was Michael Erneman, architect. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 26~ 1998 The low landscape walls were in the original application and at that point they were built of stacked stone. They are basically seat height around 18 inches. The stacked stone was meant to be extensions of the stone that would be in the cliff or bluff. It was more of a landscape item. Because there are low walls running through the property it seemed to be more appealing to go with precast concrete. It would be the same color. The request is to go forward with the change in materials for the seating walls. The observation deck does exist currently and this is a replacement of it. It has to be rebuilt and it is in the same location and slightly smaller. It is being rebuilt with slightly different detailing. Instead of all timber some steel components are incorporated. The deck instead of straight boards would be bent boards on the walking surface. Steel would make the supporting members and railing members thinner so that they are more transparent from Hallam Lake. The hexagonal wooden flag pole sits at the crossing of two very important axis, one is a walkway and the other is the extension of Garmisch that crosses at that point. Nothing is impacted from the Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. The height was determined as there needs to be a dialogue between the mass of the house to the flag pole point. The majority of the board was in favor of Staff's recommendation. Some members had concerns that the concrete walls took away from the "garden experience". MOTION: Heidi moved to approve the Minor Development review for 414 N. First Street, the Lewis and Posada Residence with the fo/lowing conditions: ~ The proposed metal tubing for the observation deck is hereby approved. ¢) The landscape walls' may be constructed with pre-cast concrete segments'. Any substantial change to the location or dimensions of these walls' may require an amendment to the Hallam Lake Bluff Review. ¢) The flag pole is approved in its' proposed location. It shall be wooden and shall not be greater than 40feet in height. No lighting of the flags is permitted. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 26~ 1998 ~) The applicant shall record this Historic Preservation Commission Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per-page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. ~) All material reresentations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Motion second by Mary. All in favor, motion carried 7-0. Mary inquired about the story boards. Michael stated that they are doing four rendered elevations from the street side that will go on the construction crane and the four elevations will be the 1888 version, 1910-1952 version and 1952-1998 version and the year 2000. One will be able to track how this house has evolved. They will be done by a sign painter or a computer graphic transfered onto boards. He informed the board that they are in the process of taking care of the sign boards. 920 W. HALLAM ST. - FINAL Development Heidi recuzed herself. Jeffrey was seated. Sworn in was Glenn Rappaport. Mitch Haas, planner relayed that the application is for a final significant review but only for the historic house. The plans are consistent with those that were approved at conceptual. The minor changes include a new door and window at the rear on the north side of the house in a portion that is not original to the house that was added in the 60' s. There is an addition of a breezeway area between the house and the relocated garage. Some light wells on the east, west and north sides are proposed to serve the bedrooms in the basement and the new basement requires a foundation. The applicants have requested approval to remove an existing side door on the east 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 26~ 1998 elevation. This is on a non-historic portion of the house. The space where the door would be removed would be filled in with matching siding. They would also like to replace the roofing of the house with asphalt shingles and lastly cover the concrete slab of the front porch with decking. Staff finds that the proposed changes are appropriate. The windows would have wood trim matching those of the historic windows. Removing the side door and matching the siding is appropriate as it is not historic and due to the configeration of the interior space the door would have to be nailed shut. The breezeway connecting the historic house lines up below the eaves of the gable end of the garage and comes in below the ridge line of the historic structure. It is subservient and compatible with the existing historic resource. With the new basement there will be foundation walls exposed. The proposal is to cover the foundation walls with a trellis kickplate design. Staff recommends that the FAR bonus be granted and Staff also feels this is an outstanding project. The applicant was given clear direction to lower the height of the western most structure. The FAR bonus would only be applicable to lot B. The bonus would be subject to approval at a legally noticed public hearing on Sept. 9, 1998. Sworn in was Glenn Rappaport. Glenn relayed that it is important to grant the bonus at conceptual because there is a reliance based on the concept of the project going forward. If they were to remove the 500 square feet the project would look different. If the board wanted a different looking project it should be indicated at conceptual. Glenn brought a sample of the fiberglass for the breezeway. Glenn relayed that the bonus is applied to lot B which consists of a new house and the historic house. A is a new house and new parcel and is not eligible for the bonus. The requirement for the bonus is to keep the historic house. The bonus goes to the lot. If the board has a problem with the FAR then they have the ability to not grant conceptual. Melanie relayed that she didn't have a problem with the 500 square feet, her concern is approving the project because of Lot A. The house on lot A doesn't quite work. Mitch relayed that if the HPC's concern is lot A when it comes in for final the board can make stipulations. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 26~ 1998 The board had no problem with the variances. Some members were confused about granting a bonus without the final drawings but the majority of the board felt the project exemplary. MOTION: Mary moved that HPC recommend approval of the Final Significant Development application as proposed, including and reaffirming the following: A. A variance from the m/n/mum side yard setbacks' of five (5)feet to allow for two (2) foot side yard setbacks' on both sides of Lot B for the lightwells (the walls' of the structures would meet the five foot setback requirement. B. A variance from the combined side yard setback requirement of twenty-three (23) feet to allow for a combined side yard setback of seven (7) feet on Lot B. C. A variance from the maximum site coverage requirement of thirty-five (35.) percent (2, 666 square fee0 to allow for a site coverage of thirty-seven (3 7) percent. D. A 500 square foot FAR bonus appliable to Lot B. Approval of this bonus shall be subject to approval at a public hearing on Sept. 9, 1998. E. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having the authority to do so. Motion second by Melanie, all in favor, motion carried 7-0. VOTE: Yes, Suzannah, Susan, Roger, Gilbert, Mary, Melanie and defJhey. 516 E. DURANT AVENUE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT Stefan Kaelin was sworn in. 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 26~ 1998 Amy Guthrie, planner relayed that the building is not an historic building but it is in the historic district. The proposal is to replace a single door with double doors to get into the shop. They also want to change the plaza in front of the building which is presently grass. The board felt the changes to the window and door would be an improvement to the facade. MOTION: Roger moved to approve the proposal for 516 E. Durant Avenue with the condition that the new doors and awnings match those of the rest of the building if there is a consistent style; second Gilbert. All in favor, motion carried. Stefan presented the plaza diagram. It basically has pavers on it and the idea is to have famous skiers put in a little plaque to recognize them and the planters are movable planters. There will also be a bench to sit on. The brick pavers would sit on sand. The Parks Dept. stated that the trees could be removed if we were to put new trees out on the city pavement. Roger recommended that the trees be in alignment on the public right-of-way to make a canopy effect. MOTION: Gilbert moved to approve the proposal for 516 E. Durant Avenue regarding the terrace revisions including the removal of the existing fence and lawn. Brick pavers will be placed over sand and any mod~cations to be approved by Staff and Monitor; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carried. The pavers will be a brick color. ELECTION MOTION: Mary moved to nominate Suzannah as chairperson and Roger for Fice-chairman; second by Susan. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Suzannah moved to adjourn; second by Jefi?ey. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Depty Clerk 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF~ AUGUST 26~ 1998 117 N. 6TH STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION ........................................................ 1 414 N. FIRST - OBSERVATION DECK AND FLAGPOLE ................................................. 1 920 W. HALLAM ST. - FINAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 3 516 E. DURANT AVENUE - MINOR DEVELOPMENT ..................................................... 5 ELECTION .............................................................................................................. 6 7